Why change now? A, its been well documented and I believe e-mail to you personally. If you like I will break it down for you here in the public eye. I collected money for a C-USA trophy that was to be presented to the team for going 4-0 in C-USA in the year they were excluded due to a certain "quality not quantity" controversy. It was around $600 I believe. I ordered a trophy and paid upfront for a trophy that 3 weeks later I was told was out of stock. I paid with a check from my personal account and the money was refunded to my account. The problem then was that I was flat ass, even less money than college students broke. I was in the process of closing my business and losing my house to forclosure and my account was in the negative and unfortunately fees ate up most of the funds. 100% my fault. I was short on the funds and could not make up the difference. It was after the football banquet so there was no immediate hurry so I stalled for a bit. I lost my house I was jobless and homeless and was attacked (rightly so) on this board and through e-mail so I dropped out of sight until I could make it right. I tried to make it right by giving the money to Bulliever to disperse as he saw fit. I also gave him the names and amounts of those that gave, having kept them. He IM'd everyone and as far as I know everyone donated those funds to the site. So: A. Got funds. B. Lost funds. C. Homeless/Jobless D. Returned funds. If you have a problem with that then let me know. If you are going to use this everytime you get a hair up your ass then that fine too. I suggest you save this post and refer to it and/or share it with anyone you choose because I will not be writing it again. hell buy an ad and publish in the Times if you choose. Feel better? Now as far as everything else is concerned: I know what the burden of proof in journalism is all about and I am not looking for rumors in print. If you work at the Times ask Tom Pierce who was my journalism professor for two years or see Jay Black at the USF St Petersburg ethics department. I have sat and discused media ethics with news directors and professors and I felt quite comfortable in those discussions. You will never hear me say that the press is too negative, there are plenty of folks around here that may say something like that but I will never be one of them. I was reacting to the assertion that news should be released on the coaches timetable. It seems like some very good people feel like they should have access to the inside news and others are not worthy. As far as I am concerened there are two types of information classifications coaches and players only, and everyone else. Suspensions are newsworthy and in the everybody else category. There are not superfans, insiders or big donors that are entittled to secret decoder rings who should be stiffling information or even rumors for that matter. I was hung over and irritable when I wrote a couple post this morning, but now I am sober and pissed. Good day.